A Fundamental Shift in Canadian Politics

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You are having some separate conversation with yourself. back here in the actual conversation the answer is clear. The Liberal party is the primary source of growth for the NDP.

That is the best way for the NDP to get relegated to third place once more. The NDP needs to get in touch with the 45% or more of citizens that don't vote.  Liberal voters have repeatedly drank the koolaid and still buy the advertising.  Trying to out liberal the Liberal party to steal its vote is a fools game.

ETA: the proof is Dix and Horwath

Debater

And why would most Liberals want to vote NDP anyway when people like Jacob Two-Two, Brachina and several others around here treat Liberals like dirt and insult our leader every minute of the day?

Btw, I think some people also forget that Justin is not Iggy.  You insult Justin at your peril.  He is well-loved by Liberals and has grown up in the public eye since he was a child and is the son of our favourite PM.  He is not a Harvard professor who spent more time in America than Canada and who most Canadians had no connection with.  It was easy for the NDP to go after Iggy because even Liberals didn't feel connected to him.  That's not the case for Trudeau.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 If I thought that the Liberals were a vehicle for progressive policy, then I might support them, but after all these years, I'd have to be an utter fool to fall for that, or someone who knew nothing about Canada's political history. So the question is, how do you fall for it, given that you clearly know Canada's political history quite well?  

I probably don't know it as well as you think I do and I am a very weird mix of cynical and idealistic. I don't think of them as broadly progressive at all. They are not very ideological at all. They are too far right economically but not quite as far as the Cons. I just want to elect them for four years. I think legalizing marijuana is significant even if that is all he does. You have all this faith in the NDP but I don't. I support the Clarity Act and I feel Mulcair supports devolution of power to provinces. His failure to denounce racist events in Quebec troubled me. So he will raise corporate taxes, not that big a deal to me. Legalizing marijuana is much more significant. I was going to say maybe next time I will go NDP, but that won't happen while the NDP is pushing the Unity Bill. I realize it has been part of the NDP platform for many years but I wasn't aware of it before. 

The letter thing is important to me. The correct reaction of an honest party should have been to expose Liberal and Conservative misuse of the mailing priveleges. Both with the mailings and the satellite offices the NDP tried to take advantage of loop-holes the first chance they got. Sure it's small, sure the others did it too, but being outraged that there is no honor among thieves doesn't impress me. Why should I think that they will be different from the others once in power? It's not that I trust the Liberal Party, it's that I don't trust the NDP either. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 Surveys show clearly that the Conservative vote is the most solid vote of all the parties. They are a dying breed, aged and out of step, but they will literally have to die out. 

Yes but there are voters who swing to the Liberals and to the NDP leaving the base smaller, pushing them into 3rd place. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 meanwhile the Liberal vote is the softest of all parties and mostly breaks to the NDP. Have the Conservatives ever dropped to 18%? I'd say about 28% is their absolute floor, and they're practically there already. There is no profit in attacking their votes except in key targetted ridings. As a general strategy it's a big loser. 

I think if they lose the next election the splinters will show. There be a leadership run and it will not be like the Liberals. There are a lot of big shot Conservatives that want that top spot. Anti-abortionists are going to be beating their drum. 

I don't think the Liberal vote is anywhere near as soft as you think it is, not under Trudeau. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 And, obviously, self-serving Liberal propaganda. 

Maybe it is, but a little intellectual exercise never hurt anyone. It's not like I'm the pied piper. It's highly unlikely I will turn the board Liberal no matter how hard I try. 

I genuinely do think attacking Trudeau too much will backfire while focusing more heavily on Harper could push him into third place. 

Say the NDP is elected as a minority government. It will need Trudeau to survive. 

If the NDP isn't elected, the next best thing is to be the OO especially with a minority Liberal government. As OO the NDP solidifies it's identity with the public. 

Right now the NDP is more in danger of dropping to 3rd place than they are of winning the election. If the Conservatives manage to hang onto 2nd place that places the NDP back into a really weak position. 

I agree with Debater, attacking Trudeau hard will not win you Liberal voters, criticize him sure, but the over the top stuff will backfire. 

fortunate

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

That is the best way for the NDP to get relegated to third place once more. The NDP needs to get in touch with the 45% or more of citizens that don't vote.  Liberal voters have repeatedly drank the koolaid and still buy the advertising.  Trying to out liberal the Liberal party to steal its vote is a fools game.

ETA: the proof is Dix and Horwath

 

I would agree.  I doubt regular Liberal voters will change their mind.  I also don't see Cons voting Liberal.  I think they would have decided long ago that goes against the grain for them.  But until/unless NDP started looking more conservative and less like socialist  working for the working class, poor student, and prbably pot smoking hippies (who now have Green to vote for)  NDP was unlikely to be a choice, and they would simply continue to vote Con even if they didn't like it.  

If NDP looks like they had a discussion about how can they look more attractive to the ones who are more likely to vote, and usually vote Cons, but no longer want to.  They've accepted they aren't getting the Green types back, so they want to be  considered an option for any voter wanting to change their normal pattern.   

Jacob Two-Two

I don't know why anyone would say that regular Liberal voters won't change their mind when that just happened in the last election. Weird.

I actually agree that if the NDP attacked Justin too much, it would reflect poorly on the party, but I disagree entirely that the same would happen with ordinary people attacking Justin in the public sphere, like this website.

There's always a lot of contradictory talk about negative campaigning. It works, it doesn't work. It worked here, it didn't work there. Basically negative campaigning works like a charm when people look at the person you're attacking and see the same things you criticised. If they don't see those things, then it backfires. I think it's a good tactic to tear down Justin because I believe that when the time comes, people will see that the criticisms are accurate. If I'm wrong, and he manages to come off well, then it will tend to pump him up and give him sympathy. So it's a risky move, I suppose, but a lot less risky than letting that empty puppet run the country. Or that is, pretend he's running the country while the 0.01% make all the decisions.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I don't know why anyone would say that regular Liberal voters won't change their mind when that just happened in the last election. Weird.  

Because the other leaders were not elected to the leadership by members and supporters. I am not a member of the party but I voted for him and so far he has not disappointed me. If anything he amuses me because I think he is playing Harper like a fiddle. I think his strategy so far is excellent. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I actually agree that if the NDP attacked Justin too much, it would reflect poorly on the party, but I disagree entirely that the same would happen with ordinary people attacking Justin in the public sphere, like this website.

Maybe not here because it isn't widely read and people are very partisan anyway. I do know that my opinion of the Conservatives worsened overtime based on my perception of their supporters. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Basically negative campaigning works like a charm when people look at the person you're attacking and see the same things you criticised. If they don't see those things, then it backfires. I think it's a good tactic to tear down Justin because I believe that when the time comes, people will see that the criticisms are accurate. 

I saw a political cartoon of Justin standing in a white suit while Harper and Mulcair were throwing mud at him, and he was grinning with not a spot on him. 

What will you tear him down for? The Conservatives have tried and failed to brand him. Not being as good a debater than Mulcair? Not being in the House enough? Justin is coming across as open, accessable, honest, sincere, friendly, caring...he's tracking even with Harper as best PM. He will know his platform. The gaffes he will make will be minor things that can be easily ignored for the simple reason that he hasn't done anything big. Justin isn't even out of the gate yet and he is ahead of the pack.

The Liberals will have a fresh realistic platform that he will know inside out. He will continue being positive and accusing the other parties of negativity. He will refuse to be dragged into Liberal history insisting that we have to look to the future. The platform will be realistic but contain some goodies. There will be lots on strengthening environmental protections and national infrastructure. Probably something for every major city. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If I'm wrong, and he manages to come off well, then it will tend to pump him up and give him sympathy. So it's a risky move, I suppose, but a lot less risky than letting that empty puppet run the country. Or that is, pretend he's running the country while the 0.01% make all the decisions.

He may not be an intellectual giant but he is an educated man. Forgeting that would be a mistake. During the leadership race he said he has always been underestimated but he doesn't mind a bit. He really doesn't. He is very comfortable in his skin. 

 

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

The letter thing is important to me. The correct reaction of an honest party should have been to expose Liberal and Conservative misuse of the mailing priveleges. Both with the mailings and the satellite offices the NDP tried to take advantage of loop-holes the first chance they got. Sure it's small, sure the others did it too, but being outraged that there is no honor among thieves doesn't impress me. Why should I think that they will be different from the others once in power? It's not that I trust the Liberal Party, it's that I don't trust the NDP either. 

If you don't trust the Liberal party, why do you want them to run the country? I don't entirely trust the NDP but I trust them waaaaay more than the Liberals who I don't trust at all, based on their record and not my feelings. That's why I'll vote NDP. If I felt these two parties were equally untrustworthy I wouldn't vote for either of them.

I agree that it would have been better if the NDP had done as you say. But let's imagine for a moment that, in addition to not exposing this misuse of resources and joining in on it, they also turned on the Liberals for doing it and hypocritically denounced them for the same action. Let's imagine the NDP even went so far as to misuse parlimentary powers to create a bogus adjudication of some sort so they could find them "guilty" of this, and order them to repay the money involved, while having no intention of repaying their own money. Wouldn't that be infinitely more outrageous than just being one party of many that engaged in this questionable practice? Wouldn't that be absurdly scummy and underhanded?

Of course, that's what did happen, except it was the Liberals who did this to the NDP, trying to mudsling them with something they were doing themselves. I can understand not liking how the NDP handled this. I can't understand at all how anyone could fail to see that the Liberals' actions are far, far more objectionable. If the NDP disappoints you on this matter, then the Liberals ought to disgust you. Once again, though, you seem immune to feeling anything about Liberals misdeeds, while curiously upset about much smaller shenanigans by the NDP. It just doesn't add up, Pondering.

I'll give you another example. In another thread I challenged you with the fact that JT campaigned for leader on free and fair nominations, then immediately interfered in the nomination process the first time it came up. Your reaction: I'm fine with that.

Meanwhile on several occasions you were very critical of Mulcair for saying he couldn't raise taxes without seeing the books during his leadership race, and then turning around and saying he wouldn't raise taxes after he became leader, even though he hadn't seen the books. That's a fair criticism. It was a bit shifty. Notice he never actually changed his position, though. He was just squirmy about how he justified it. Compare that to Justin, who literally said one thing and then right away did the exact opposite. He didn't even give us some hogwash about how he had changed his mind. He just went back on his word, without a second thought.

It's clear which one of these is the bigger issue of trust. Neither are admirable, but Justin's actions are undeniably worse. Yet you brush it off like it's nothing while condemning Mulcair for a far smaller crime. The gap between how you react to Liberal crimes and the misdemeanors of others is huge and makes no sense whatsoever. It seems innocent and guilty is just a matter of colour to you. Red is always innocent no matter what they do, while orange and blue is always guilty. You really need to check your head. Judge by actions, not by words. Read the facts, not your feelings. And remember a crime is a crime, no matter if it's perpetrated by someone you "like" (but don't actually know).

Aristotleded24

Pondering, since you seem to hope that the Conservatives may fall to third place, how do you see things playing out in Western Canada? Western Canada gives the Conservatives a crap load of seats, so unless we get kicked out of Confederation, this is a big thing to get around. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Sean in Ottawa

It is not a given that the Conservatives will always hold as many seats in Western Canada as they do now. They could easily lose up to half of their seats to a combination of Liberals, NDP and other independent or new right of centre options.

Aristotleded24

Sean, I know that it's far from a given that the Conservatives will always have a firm grip on Western Canada, I even pointed that out in my post upthread. What I object to is whenever political analysis is done, it ignores the vast differences and complexities that exist between the different regions of the country. One example that boggles my mind is how the Liberals are considered a "national" party even though they've really struggled in Western Canada since the 1940s and Quebec since 1984. It really does feel like Western Canada is ignored sometimes (not to mention the history of how central Canadian elites got rich off the resources in Western Canada) and as annoying as I find the "Western Alienation" types, the sense of frustration is quite legitimate.

So getting back to the original idea: we're going to beat the Conservatives. Where? Are we going to focus the campaign on Ontario and Quebec and hope that compensates for Western Canada? Or, do we try and defeat Conservatives in Western Canada? If so, how do you see getting Western Canada to stop supporting the Conservatives? If you want to defeat the Conservatives yet don't acknowledge that they have a pretty strong base in an important region of the country, you're going to have a tough time. I haven't heard anyone speak specifically to that aspect in this thread.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
So getting back to the original idea: we're going to beat the Conservatives. Where? Are we going to focus the campaign on Ontario and Quebec and hope that compensates for Western Canada? Or, do we try and defeat Conservatives in Western Canada? If so, how do you see getting Western Canada to stop supporting the Conservatives? If you want to defeat the Conservatives yet don't acknowledge that they have a pretty strong base in an important region of the country, you're going to have a tough time. I haven't heard anyone speak specifically to that aspect in this thread.

I don't understand Western politics. I don't understand how voters can flip from Conservative to NDP. I am just so accustomed to thinking of the Liberals as being in the middle. But honestly, I am fine with votes going NDP. I know about the National Energy Plan that so offended Westerners but I don't see why they still aren't over it. 

I worry about Alberta. I think they might be more likely than Quebec to separate. I believe any PM who dared stop Keystone could precipitate a national crisis because it goes between Alberta and the States touching no other provinces. For Canada to stand in the way of it I think would feel like a breach of sovereignty to Albertans. I see Manitoba and Saskatchewan as less extreme than Alberta.

I thought Sean's earlier analysis was really good. Who picks up the leadership after Harper matters a lot as does how much they lose the election by. I want them to become even more Tea Party types so they will alienate Red Tories. 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If you don't trust the Liberal party, why do you want them to run the country? I don't entirely trust the NDP but I trust them waaaaay more than the Liberals who I don't trust at all, based on their record and not my feelings. That's why I'll vote NDP. If I felt these two parties were equally untrustworthy I wouldn't vote for either of them.  

I think the NDP would be just as dishonest as any other party once in power. That is what the letter thing proved to me. If they get a chance to cheat they will take it. They just haven't been given as many opportunities. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Wouldn't that be infinitely more outrageous than just being one party of many that engaged in this questionable practice? Wouldn't that be absurdly scummy and underhanded? 

No, this is all political gamesmanship and pretty meaningless when it comes to the 2015 election. It damages the "holier than thou" message the NDP tries to send but people are cynical now anyway. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 I can't understand at all how anyone could fail to see that the Liberals' actions are far, far more objectionable. If the NDP disappoints you on this matter, then the Liberals ought to disgust you. Once again, though, you seem immune to feeling anything about Liberals misdeeds, while curiously upset about much smaller shenanigans by the NDP. It just doesn't add up, Pondering. 

I'm not upset about it, I just don't buy the "holier than thou" messaging. I believe the NDP would behave exactly as the Liberals have. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I'll give you another example. In another thread I challenged you with the fact that JT campaigned for leader on free and fair nominations, then immediately interfered in the nomination process the first time it came up. Your reaction: I'm fine with that. 

What I understood JT to be saying when he first made the annoucement is that he wouldn't assign seats. The person would have to be elected by the riding. When everyone started making a fuss because of supporting one canditate over another, or parachuting someone in, I didn't see the fuss. They still had to be elected locally. As far as I'm concerned he kept his word. Other people just read more into what he said. 

I believe Mulcair will raise corporate taxes by a bit but with a minority government, which is the best he can get, he won't be able to do much even if he wants to. I honestly feel he is better off not winning but keeping the OO. If he wins, and disappoints supporters because he isn't that different I think it could hurt the party more longterm. If he keeps the OO, the NDP solidifies their position as the government in waiting, first against the Conservatives, next against the Liberals. The NDP have been OO against a majority government. Not much they can do beyond express indignation regularly. With a Liberal minority in place the NDP could flex their muscles gaining more credibility than they could against a majority. 

No party is going to run for second place. I'm just saying the Liberals and NDP will most likely have to cooperate no matter which one wins. 

Honestly I don't believe that Mulcair has a hope in hell against Trudeau this cycle. I think the stars are just aligned for him. I think Mulcair will gain more by setting his sights heavily on Harper. Attacks on Trudeau will just look petty because he is popular. People want to like him. Once Trudeau takes power then ammunition will begin to collect. I really think last election people panicked when they thought the NDP might actually win. The NDP can use the time to solidify their reputation as the government in waiting lessening the chance of last minute voter panic. 

Brachina

 The mailers were legal and allowed, there was nothing wrong with what the NDP did.

 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
The mailers were legal and allowed, there was nothing wrong with what the NDP did.

I couldn't care less it if was technically within the rules or not, and I don't think that has been settled. If they have to pay the money back it was not within the rules. It seems like the Libs and Cons stayed within the letter of the rules but they didn't stay within the spirit.

All three parties have used the system to send out partisan mailers intended to boost their party rather than inform constituents. That isn't what the letter were intended for. 

I never even open those envelopes because I know they are junk mail advertising not intended to inform me about something important affecting me or my riding. 

thorin_bane

So pondering you have never watched the libs govern. Take ontraio. or Paul Martin, or the Red Books? The libs have ALWAYS gone hard right when not in a minority government. All things left have ONLY come during minorities with the NDP as the main backer. Think about it for a minute as per your name.

I am with Jake on this one, if you think Just-In is going to be anything less than a paul martin liberal you are fooling yourself, and no one else. Just look at his support for the one pipeline but sometimes not the other. The only time he takes a stand is when his handlers(those who will run the party anyway) haven't put a clamp on his motormouth.

You want to see what best sums up your Liberal party. Afternoon Just-In says there will no longer be Liberal senate members. 2 Hours later they rebrand themselves Senate Liberals instead of Liberal Senators ..WOW really turned the corner there. So nothing changed but the optics, which you of course thinking hard on it are OK WITH!

Mad simply mad. All they want is for Just-In to go out and make people fell good and donate all their money to the libs while making sure the corporations know it will be the new boss same as the old boss. The Libs realize that they can't win an election without the media and boatloads of money. Harpers propaganda model has been shown to keep sheep asleep and the Libs hope to replicate it knowing how many people consdier themself a centerist voter, even though that doesn't really exist. If you look at party records very few would have gotten voted in by what the did in office vs their election platform of the day. Least likely is Liberals.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Wouldn't that be infinitely more outrageous than just being one party of many that engaged in this questionable practice? Wouldn't that be absurdly scummy and underhanded? 

No, this is all political gamesmanship and pretty meaningless when it comes to the 2015 election. It damages the "holier than thou" message the NDP tries to send but people are cynical now anyway.

Sorry, but this is ludicrous. The Liberals are trying to force another party to repay millions for partisan mailouts, while having no intention of paying back the money for their own partisan mailouts. If you really can't see how much worse this is than doing the mailouts in the first place, I can only conclude that you are impervious to reason. It is absurdly obvious. In fact, nothing the NDP has ever done is as scummy as this one Liberal move, and it's not the scummiest thing the Liberals have done by a long shot. You might not see yourself this way, but you are being partisan to an irrational degree.

Quote:

I'm not upset about it, I just don't buy the "holier than thou" messaging. I believe the NDP would behave exactly as the Liberals have. 

Really? You're just going to assume that the NDP would pull a trick this dirty even though they've never done anything like this? Every time the Liberals pull another dirty trick you're going to brush it off by assuming, with no evidence, that the NDP would probably do the same? So you're telling me that you're prepared to condemn the NDP for something that they haven't done, while simultaneously forgiving the Liberals for actually doing it? Does your partisanship know no bounds? This is astounding. This is what you call political analysis?

Once again, the hypocrisy of the Liberals trying to villify another party for something they were doing themselves is far worse than the thing itself. That is clear as a bell. If you can't see it, then your brain must have blinders on.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I'll give you another example. In another thread I challenged you with the fact that JT campaigned for leader on free and fair nominations, then immediately interfered in the nomination process the first time it came up. Your reaction: I'm fine with that. 

What I understood JT to be saying when he first made the annoucement is that he wouldn't assign seats. The person would have to be elected by the riding. When everyone started making a fuss because of supporting one canditate over another, or parachuting someone in, I didn't see the fuss. They still had to be elected locally. As far as I'm concerned he kept his word. Other people just read more into what he said. 

People like the riding president?

"There was absolutely no due or fair process ... and there was absolutely zero local involvement," riding president Julia Metus said in the statement.

"This is contrary to everything the Liberal party — new or otherwise — is supposed to stand for."

I guess you know better than her what Justin meant, seeing as you two are so close. She probably just doesn't understand him the way you do.

Or, more rationally, Justin is a liar and a cheat. A typical Liberal scumbag.

Quote:

I believe Mulcair will raise corporate taxes by a bit but with a minority government, which is the best he can get, he won't be able to do much even if he wants to.

Hey, remember last election? When everyone "knew" that the best the NDP could hope for was a strong third? They were dead wrong, weren't they? Doesn't pay to make too many assumptions in politics, especially with a party that's on its way up. Maybe you should just vote for the best party, instead of trying to outsmart the whole process by divining the outcome beforehand.

Quote:

Honestly I don't believe that Mulcair has a hope in hell against Trudeau this cycle. I think the stars are just aligned for him.

Well yes, that's pretty obvious. Sadly, that seems to be the full depth of your analysis. Justin gives you the warm fuzzies, so he must be awesome, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because if he wasn't awesome then where would these warm fuzzies come from? He must be honest, no matter how much he lies. He must be hardworking, no matter how much he skips out on his job. He must be intelligent, no matter how many stupid things he says. He must be ethical, no matter how many times he breaks his word. Your warm fuzzies tell you so. And the fact that you keep having to overlook more and more of his real actions to keep this illusion going gives you no pause at all. It's honestly quite sad.

Quote:

I think Mulcair will gain more by setting his sights heavily on Harper. Attacks on Trudeau will just look petty because he is popular. People want to like him.

Sure they want to like him. That's what it means to be charming. But applying for PM isn't like becoming a talk show host. It's a real job with a highly specialised skill set, and there aren't a lot of people out there who would have the skills to do it, despite whatever intentions they have. When people finally take a hard look at Justin, they'll find him seriously lacking. As I said elsewhere, attacks on people only fall flat when the public isn't seeing the same criticisms that you're making. Once Justin has to do more than make speeches to friendly crowds, they will see it. That's when the cumulative effect of the attacks will bear fruit. You're backing the wrong horse, Pondering. Justin's actions have clearly shown him as a scumbag. His actions, not my feelings. But even if he wasn't, he still wouldn't have what it takes to run the country.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I don't understand Western politics. I don't understand how voters can flip from Conservative to NDP. I am just so accustomed to thinking of the Liberals as being in the middle. But honestly, I am fine with votes going NDP. I know about the National Energy Plan that so offended Westerners but I don't see why they still aren't over it.

It's what I call a blue-collar Tory dynamic. These people want effective government services, they want their tax dollars respected, and they want their children to be safe and have as good or better a life than they had. They swing back and forth between the right and the left all the time. Look at voting patterns in the City of Winnipeg to give you an idea. There's also a very strong anti-establishment streak in Western Canada, whether the establishment means big banks, corporate and economic interest, or activist special interests. Basically, voters in Western Canada are looking to pick whichever side best makes the case that it will stand up for them, and straddling the middle as the Liberals claim to do does not appeal to that mindset.

Pondering wrote:
I worry about Alberta. I think they might be more likely than Quebec to separate. I believe any PM who dared stop Keystone could precipitate a national crisis because it goes between Alberta and the States touching no other provinces. For Canada to stand in the way of it I think would feel like a breach of sovereignty to Albertans. I see Manitoba and Saskatchewan as less extreme than Alberta.

Why yes, Big Bad Alberta! Alberta is such a horrible province because they elect right-wing governments, and are out to privatize all their government services! And the Liberals bravely pointed out that Alberta was experimenting with private health care, and boldly going where no other province had gone before! No other province, except for BC, Ontario, and Quebec, all of whom also experimented with private health care, 2 of them under the watch of Liberal governments. Where was the denouncement by the federal Liberals of these provinces? Were they too busy while undoing the provisions in the Canada Health Act that would have stopped the privatization from happening? And why is Alberta that much more extreme that Ontario and Quebec, both of whom have, in recent memory, elected and re-elected right-wing governments that were just as bad? Not to mention that there is a region of Ontario that is very strongly conservative. Jamey Heath argued in "Dead Centre" that if Ontario were split into 4 provinces, one of them would be as conservative as Alberta.

Is this why that hero of national unity Trudeau thinks that it's a bad idea to put Albertans in charge of the federal government?

But moving along to the pipeline issue specifically, did you know that there are several Albertans (including that communist left-wing extremist Peter Lougheed) who are concerned about the jobs that would be shipped out of Alberta should the Keystone go through? And while I would never support heavy tarsands oil going in any direction, Keystone has specifically been singled out by environmentalists around the world to say that if it goes through, the CO2 emissions would basically make long-term human survival on the planet an impossibility. So yes, in terms of absolute emissions, Keystone is far worse than the energy east pipeline. All the international campaigns focus on Keystone. If there is an international outcry about energy east, I've yet to see it.

Brachina

 Mulcair's reasoning on the east pipeline is its carbon output can be basically cancelled out by cap and trade. He calls it internalizing the costs and polluter pay. But that won't work for Keystone (most of the pipeline is in the USA which doesn't use cap and trade) and on top of that it will export 40,000 jobs.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 Mulcair's reasoning on the east pipeline is its carbon output can be basically cancelled out by cap and trade. He calls it internalizing the costs and polluter pay. But that won't work for Keystone (most of the pipeline is in the USA which doesn't use cap and trade) and on top of that it will export 40,000 jobs.

Thanks for the input Brachina.

 

(still thinking Aristotle)

Brachina

 Your welcome.

terrytowel

Tom Mulcair was on The West Block today to talk about this very topic. The shift in Canadian politics, specifically the NDP.

"I think that if you look at the history of some of the social democratic parties, look at British labour under Tony Blair, you know he used to quip that it wasn’t a question of left and right, it was a question of what worked and what didn’t work.  And I think Canadians want people who are realists, who understand for example the importance of our extractive industries and the creation of jobs, but they also want to have a government that’s actually going to enforce rules of sustainable development like polluter pay.  We can do both."

You can either read the transcript or watch the video of the rest of the interview at link below.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1409254/transcript-episode-42-june-22/

onlinediscountanvils

Aristotleded24 wrote:
why is Alberta that much more extreme that Ontario and Quebec, both of whom have, in recent memory, elected and re-elected right-wing governments that were just as bad?

I have no time for people who try to dismiss Albertans as being exceptionally backward compared to the rest of the country.* We all have shit to deal with in our own backyards, and no province or region is a monolith. That said, if one were to judge solely by election results, Alberta is pretty much a right-wing monolith.

The PCs came to power in Alberta in 1971. Since then, Ontario has had four changes in government, with the PCs, Liberals, and NDP all having formed majority governments. In that same time, Quebec has gone back and forth between the Liberals and PQ six times.

Within that same timeframe, federally, Alberta has mostly voted PC, Reform, Alliance, and Conservative. Although voting for Mulroney in large numbers, Quebec has also voted en masse for the BQ, Liberals, and NDP. And in Ontario, support has mostly swung between the Liberals and PC/Conservatives, along with an occasional smaller contingent of New Democrats.

So yes, while Ontario and Quebec have both elected right-wing governments, I think the fact that there's at least some variation in their voting patterns is the reason they don't get stuck with those labels quite as often, or in quite the same way.

* ETA: just in case it wasn't clear, I'm in no way suggesting that Aristotleded24 has done this. Quite the contrary.

Aristotleded24

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
The PCs came to power in Alberta in 1971. Since then, Ontario has had four changes in government, with the PCs, Liberals, and NDP all having formed majority governments. In that same time, Quebec has gone back and forth between the Liberals and PQ six times.

Within that same timeframe, federally, Alberta has mostly voted PC, Reform, Alliance, and Conservative. Although voting for Mulroney in large numbers, Quebec has also voted en masse for the BQ, Liberals, and NDP. And in Ontario, support has mostly swung between the Liberals and PC/Conservatives, along with an occasional smaller contingent of New Democrats.

So yes, while Ontario and Quebec have both elected right-wing governments, I think the fact that there's at least some variation in their voting patterns is the reason they don't get stuck with those labels quite as often, or in quite the same way.

Remember that voter turnout in Alberta is considerably lower than the rest of the country. I mean, if the PCs are going to win a landslide majority and your consitiuency with 70% or more of the vote, why bother? Remember also that many Albertans feared that a Wildrose government would mean drastic service cuts, so in larger numbers they turned out to vote for the incumbent PCs to stop that from happening. Now, the PC charade seems to have fallen flat, and the other parties are gaining more support. For example, the NDP is polling particularly strongly in Edmonton.

Rokossovsky

Yes, well isn't that the thing, if the NDP is polling badly you must strategically vote for the Liberals, because your vote is wasted, and the Conservatives might get in, and if the NDP is polling well you must stratefically vote for the Liberals, because you might split the vote, and the Conservatives might get in.

PrairieDemocrat15

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 If I thought that the Liberals were a vehicle for progressive policy, then I might support them, but after all these years, I'd have to be an utter fool to fall for that, or someone who knew nothing about Canada's political history. So the question is, how do you fall for it, given that you clearly know Canada's political history quite well?  

I probably don't know it as well as you think I do and I am a very weird mix of cynical and idealistic. I don't think of them as broadly progressive at all. They are not very ideological at all. They are too far right economically but not quite as far as the Cons. I just want to elect them for four years. I think legalizing marijuana is significant even if that is all he does. You have all this faith in the NDP but I don't. I support the Clarity Act and I feel Mulcair supports devolution of power to provinces. His failure to denounce racist events in Quebec troubled me. So he will raise corporate taxes, not that big a deal to me. Legalizing marijuana is much more significant. I was going to say maybe next time I will go NDP, but that won't happen while the NDP is pushing the Unity Bill. I realize it has been part of the NDP platform for many years but I wasn't aware of it before. 

The letter thing is important to me. The correct reaction of an honest party should have been to expose Liberal and Conservative misuse of the mailing priveleges. Both with the mailings and the satellite offices the NDP tried to take advantage of loop-holes the first chance they got. Sure it's small, sure the others did it too, but being outraged that there is no honor among thieves doesn't impress me. Why should I think that they will be different from the others once in power? It's not that I trust the Liberal Party, it's that I don't trust the NDP either. 

The NDP is sooo dishonest. They could have taken the high road and expose the old parties' playing fast and loose with mailing rules. I know that the party has been complaining about Conservative and Liberal mailers for years and nothing has been done, but they should have just sant on their hands and handed this competative advantage to the other parties, because the NDP is more about principles than power. The NDP is betraying its roots by acting like the other parties. I can't trust that the NDP won't be like the Liberals if they gain power, so I better just vote Liberal next election.

I didn't vote NDP in the past because the party was too concerned about principles and policy and didn't have the electoral skills to win power. Besides, we needed to stop Mulroney/Campbell/Manning/Day/Harper. I know when the Liberals are in government they cut taxes for corporations and the rich, cut spending and service levels, privatize and contract-out services and Crown corporations, do nothing for electoral reform, the environment, cities, the poor, women, immigrants, and Aboriginal peoples; but if the Conservatives got in things would be SO MUCH WORSE! Now that the federal NDP finally has a chance at power, however, I just can't vote for them. They are trying too hard to get elected, and sacrificing their principles. Politics is about ideas and values, not winning elections and stopping the other parties.  The NDP has changed; it isn't the party of Jack Layton, anymore.

/sarc

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
Yes, well isn't that the thing, if the NDP is polling badly you must strategically vote for the Liberals, because your vote is wasted, and the Conservatives might get in, and if the NDP is polling well you must stratefically vote for the Liberals, because you might split the vote, and the Conservatives might get in.

No, why must everything come down to that?  Everyone needs to vote based on their own particular range of issues and respect the right of others to do the same. 

I always say I will vote Liberal because I support them this time around, but in actual fact I will probably end up voting NDP due to the riding I am in. If they have a significantly better shot I will vote NDP as a lessor of evils choice not that I think the NDP are evil. I just consider that the sensible thing to do FOR ME.

I would certainly argue that others should do the same, vote Liberals if the NDP has no chance at all in a riding but I would understand if people said they couldn't do it in good conscience and would still vote NDP/Green, whatever as a statement of support. 

Of course my thoughts are affected by my bias, but I am trying to discuss my thoughts as objectively as possible because I am curious about how things will play out over the next couple of decades. 

Pondering

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

I didn't vote NDP in the past because the party was too concerned about principles and policy and didn't have the electoral skills to win power. Besides, we needed to stop Mulroney/Campbell/Manning/Day/Harper. I know when the Liberals are in government they cut taxes for corporations and the rich, cut spending and service levels, privatize and contract-out services and Crown corporations, do nothing for electoral reform, the environment, cities, the poor, women, immigrants, and Aboriginal peoples; but if the Conservatives got in things would be SO MUCH WORSE! Now that the federal NDP finally has a chance at power, however, I just can't vote for them. They are trying too hard to get elected, and sacrificing their principles. Politics is about ideas and values, not winning elections and stopping the other parties.  The NDP has changed; it isn't the party of Jack Layton, anymore.

/sarc

You completely ignored my complaints on his positions concerning Quebec especially the Unity Act and my sense that he approves devolution of powers to provinces. My vote was one of the ones that put the NDP in the OO by giving Gilles Duceppe the boot.

I don't like his policies AND he has shown himself as willing as the others to dip into the coffers. He could have put pictures of the flyers on the NDP website and he could have made them an issue in the HoC asking how much taxpayer money was spent on the partisan mailers.  

I do like some important Liberal policies including his position on prostitution, which is that it is violence against women, Marijuana, Clarity Act, and faster stronger denouncement of Quebec prejudice.  

The NDP no longer the "Holier than thou" ace card because they illustrated that they are willing to play with taxpayer money for party advantage too. Yes it's small, because small is all they have access to. The other parties do not have satellite offices paid by taxpayers by funnelling the money through MP expense allowances. The NDP was looking for ways to have the taxpayer take on NDP party expenses. You can defend it or point fingers elsewhere, but the NDP as lost the high ground. If they would do that now they will do it in power. If I prefered NDP policy I would support them but I don't. So then you say I should just trust the NDP and not the Liberals anyway even though I prefer the Liberals policies.The federal NDP are clean because they haven't been in power federally not because they are more honest which they just proved. 

 

Brachina

 The Satellite Offices were payed for by the NDP itself, so get that staight, no government money was spent on that. 

 The NDP has a right to self defense on the issue of mailings, don't like it tough.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
You completely ignored my complaints on his positions concerning Quebec especially the Unity Act and my sense that he approves devolution of powers to provinces. My vote was one of the ones that put the NDP in the OO by giving Gilles Duceppe the boot.

Where do you get the idea that Mulcair wants to devolve powers to the provinces? He has, for example, advocated that the federal government come up with a national housing strategy even though housing itself is an explicitly provincial jurisdiction. The type of federalism that Pierre Trudeau advocated is dead throughout Canada and has been for some time. There are so many differences between provinces and regions, you can't simply impose your will from Ottawa as the Liberals like to do.

Brachina

 I believe Pondering maybe refering to Asymetrical Federalism. Basically any province can drop out of a federal program, like say a national housing program and do there own without being penalized fincially.

 

 And its something I supported as the constututional reality.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
It's what I call a blue-collar Tory dynamic. These people want effective government services, they want their tax dollars respected, and they want their children to be safe and have as good or better a life than they had. They swing back and forth between the right and the left all the time. Look at voting patterns in the City of Winnipeg to give you an idea. There's also a very strong anti-establishment streak in Western Canada, whether the establishment means big banks, corporate and economic interest, or activist special interests. Basically, voters in Western Canada are looking to pick whichever side best makes the case that it will stand up for them, and straddling the middle as the Liberals claim to do does not appeal to that mindset.

Okay, so the Liberals are perceived to be establishment and neither the NDP or the Conservatives are. It still seems bizarre to me as they seem like the two extremes, so people who would want the Conservative market driven focus would not want the NDP tax and social services model.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Why yes, Big Bad Alberta! Alberta is such a horrible province because they elect right-wing governments, and are out to privatize all their government services!  

No, it's more that I am used to seeing Quebec as the maverick province of Canada that marches to the beat of it's own drummer and is often misunderstood by the rest of Canada.  Quebec would get seriously offended and have a massive hissy fit if the rest of Canada even hinted that they could forbid a deal between the States and Hydro Quebec. It wouldn't matter if Canada had the same opinions as the majority of Quebecers. It's not the point. Quebec would see it as a sovereignty issue.

Over time I have come to see Alberta as a maverick province in the sense that it marches to the beat of it's own drummer much like Quebec does. You don't have the language issue making a clear demarcation but to me Alberta has a different culture. Understanding Quebec goes well beyond left/right political spectrum issues.  Civil code and language are clear demarcations to point at and say "that's different".  Alberta may not have those kinds of signifiers but it has a distinct ethos. Your explanation of an anti-establishment type thinking style has helped me to understand better I think but I don't feel I "know" Alberta the way I do other areas of Canada. I used to think of it as a right/left thing but I don't anymore. I see it's more complex than that.   I guess what I am saying is that I am recognizing in  Alberta a similar distinctness to that which exists in Quebec. Quebec can be very difficult for the rest of Canada to understand. While I condemn the position Quebec took with the soccer hijab incidents and the Charter issue I do get where Quebec is coming from. I understand the garrison mentality. But, I also think that mentality is losing strength because the youth live in a connected world and are unafraid of it.

So, my sense of Albertans is that even if they were against Keystone, they would see it as their decision. Keystone crosses no provincial borders. It's international giving the federal government a voice, but it is not up to Quebec, or B.C. or P.E.I to have a deciding vote.

People have obsessed over the possibility of Quebec separating for as long as I can remember because of the separatist movement but I think the danger has passed for Quebec. I'm not saying that Alberta is on the verge of separation, but if the States approves Keystone, and Ottawa steps in and shuts it down, I think it would cause a very serious rupture between Alberta and the rest of Canada that would boost western separatist sentiments on principle.  Refusing Northern Gateway, refusing Energy East, would piss Alberta off but Alberta would accept it. The pipelines cross other provinces that have right of refusal. Alberta might take retaliatory steps against goods crossing Alberta but that would be it.  Stopping Keystone if Albertans and Americans had a deal and all environmental approvals? Alberta would flip out.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is this why that hero of national unity Trudeau thinks that it's a bad idea to put Albertans in charge of the federal government?

He admitted he misspoke and that he meant Harper style politics and it was years ago. Alberta is never going to elect him anyway. He's trying/hoping for a few seats but he will win based on policy not some old statement taken out of context which is as it should be. It won't hurt him elsewhere because people do think of Alberta as Harper country. His statement was public, but most people who would consider voting for him think pretty much the same thing, Alberta is Harper country and the majority of Canadians are left of Harper for lack of a better description. Fine if Alberta wants it for themselves, but the rest of the country doesn't. So yeah, if Alberta style politics were imposed in Quebec there would be revolt which is basically what Trudeau was saying. Would Alberta like Quebec style government imposed on them? That's all he was saying. 

P.S. Brachina, yes that's it. For example, I want my medicare card to work the same no matter where I am in Canada. 

Winston

Having worked in the federal government for some time, I cannot say that most things are worse off under the Conservatives than the Liberals. Certainly, while I don't agree with the Conservatives on many policy matters, I can see action on many files since they took office. Under the dithering Liberals, all we saw in the civil service was a whole lot of nice-sounding talk but no action (except when it came to padding their own and their buddies' pockets). The climate change file is but one such example, but there are many others. The Liberals, unfortunately, are nothing more than a haven for self-aggrandizing opportunists who want nothing except power but have no idea what to do with it once they get it. As much as I'd like to see the Conservatives replaced, I don't think a Liberal govenment (especially one headed by Justin "Dubya" Trudeau) would be an improvement. In fact, I think most things would be worse off.

I am also tired of all this talk about "progressives" and how the NDP, Greens and Liberals are somehow cut from the same cloth. They aren't. The NDP and Liberals have completely different views on how to structure the economy and civil society. Whereas the NDP, in both its traditions and record, is steeped in the cooperative and labour movements, the Liberals have always been aligned (even moreso than the Conservatives) with the country's corporate elite. This is why, unless they are addressing the Chamber of Commerce, the Liberals would rather talk about social issues like marijuana and abortion or issues of perceived patriotism like Canadian "unity" than, say, corporate taxation. While such issues resonate with me too, I believe there are more fundamental issues to be discussing. Simply put, I am not a "progressive," whatever the f*ck that means, I am a social democrat - and I vote that way.

Pondering

Winston wrote:
Having worked in the federal government for some time, I cannot say that most things are worse off under the Conservatives than the Liberals.

So you have no problem with the decimation of environmental protection laws, no problem with the pettiness of closing down the environmental lakes project while installing a fake lake for photo ops.? If you can't see any difference between Harper reformacons and the Liberals you deserve another 4 years of reformacons. 

Unionist

Winston wrote:

Having worked in the federal government for some time, I cannot say that most things are worse off under the Conservatives than the Liberals. 

[...]

Simply put, I am not a "progressive," whatever the f*ck that means, I am a social democrat - and I vote that way.

Thank you for that! It sets out, unmistakably, the difference between progressives and partisans.

Jack Layton's lasting legacy was that, even though he was the leader of the "social democrats" (whatever the f*ck that means), he was able to see the utter bankruptcy of the above when he pushed for a coalition government in November 2008.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Thank you for that! It sets out, unmistakably, the difference between progressives and partisans.

I don't know. At least "social democracy" is a descriptive term. "Progressive" is completely relative, depending on the issue at hand.

You want to see progressives going at it tooth and nail any day of the week? Look no further.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
It's what I call a blue-collar Tory dynamic. These people want effective government services, they want their tax dollars respected, and they want their children to be safe and have as good or better a life than they had. They swing back and forth between the right and the left all the time. Look at voting patterns in the City of Winnipeg to give you an idea. There's also a very strong anti-establishment streak in Western Canada, whether the establishment means big banks, corporate and economic interest, or activist special interests. Basically, voters in Western Canada are looking to pick whichever side best makes the case that it will stand up for them, and straddling the middle as the Liberals claim to do does not appeal to that mindset.

Okay, so the Liberals are perceived to be establishment and neither the NDP or the Conservatives are. It still seems bizarre to me as they seem like the two extremes, so people who would want the Conservative market driven focus would not want the NDP tax and social services model.

I think the sentiment can be best summed up by, "just make up your damn mind, follow through with your decision, and then we can move on to the next issue."

Pondering wrote:
So, my sense of Albertans is that even if they were against Keystone, they would see it as their decision. Keystone crosses no provincial borders. It's international giving the federal government a voice, but it is not up to Quebec, or B.C. or P.E.I to have a deciding vote.

People have obsessed over the possibility of Quebec separating for as long as I can remember because of the separatist movement but I think the danger has passed for Quebec. I'm not saying that Alberta is on the verge of separation, but if the States approves Keystone, and Ottawa steps in and shuts it down, I think it would cause a very serious rupture between Alberta and the rest of Canada that would boost western separatist sentiments on principle.

To that, my response is "too damn bad." Keystone in particular has been singled out as having a particularly detrimental effect on the planet's ecosystem. It must be stopped using any means possible, and it must be accompanied by more green energy to reduce the demand for tarsands oil in the first place.

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is this why that hero of national unity Trudeau thinks that it's a bad idea to put Albertans in charge of the federal government?

He admitted he misspoke and that he meant Harper style politics and it was years ago.

And what a coincidence that he only apologized once that interview was made public and he started feeling the backlash, many years after the fact?

When a politician apologizes for something, 99% of the time what (s)he means is, "I'm sorry that the public found out about my transgression and the fact that it's hurting my prospects of being elected." Public apologies from politicians are generally self-serving and trying to justify whatever it was that got them in trouble in the first place.

Pondering wrote:
Winston wrote:
Having worked in the federal government for some time, I cannot say that most things are worse off under the Conservatives than the Liberals.

So you have no problem with the decimation of environmental protection laws, no problem with the pettiness of closing down the environmental lakes project while installing a fake lake for photo ops.? If you can't see any difference between Harper reformacons and the Liberals you deserve another 4 years of reformacons.

I do see a difference between the 2 parties. The Conservatives, for the most part, are generally honest and open about what they believe the role of government should be (i.e. none) and about their feelings towards people who lose out under their policies. The Liberals have a well-documented history of pretending to care about certain causes (i.e. the environment) and then not following through (i.e. worse GHG emissions than George Bush).

And the credit for saving the experimental lakes belongs primarily with the governments of Manitoba and Ontario, not the federal politicians.

Winston wrote:
Having worked in the federal government for some time, I cannot say that most things are worse off under the Conservatives than the Liberals. Certainly, while I don't agree with the Conservatives on many policy matters, I can see action on many files since they took office. Under the dithering Liberals, all we saw in the civil service was a whole lot of nice-sounding talk but no action (except when it came to padding their own and their buddies' pockets). The climate change file is but one such example, but there are many others. The Liberals, unfortunately, are nothing more than a haven for self-aggrandizing opportunists who want nothing except power but have no idea what to do with it once they get it. As much as I'd like to see the Conservatives replaced, I don't think a Liberal govenment (especially one headed by Justin "Dubya" Trudeau) would be an improvement. In fact, I think most things would be worse off.

Exactly Winston. The danger is that when it becomes about stopping a certain politician more than about the policies that politician espouses, then people don't pay close attention and they get something as bad or worse. I can use the example of the Chretien Liberals, who promised to repeal NAFTA and the GST and implement national daycare. Instead, NAFTA was kept, we still have no daycare, and the Liberals made brutal cuts to health care, social programs, and unemployment that Mulroney would not have dared do. We can also look to the US, where people are so scared of the Republicans that they supported Obama, and instead got inaction on the struggling economy, a growing wealth gap, a pitiful response to the oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, and more wars of agression and war crimes overseas. I can even give a local example, where everybody is so scared of Brian Pallister because his cuts will hurt poor people, except he came out publicly in favour of raising EIA rates long before the NDP did.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
And what a coincidence that he only apologized once that interview was made public and he started feeling the backlash, many years after the fact?

Why would someone apologize for a passing misstatement from years earlier unless someone brought it up?

This is on the level of harassing Mulcair over the envelope from years ago because it came up recently.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
To that, my response is "too damn bad." Keystone in particular has been singled out as having a particularly detrimental effect on the planet's ecosystem. It must be stopped using any means possible, and it must be accompanied by more green energy to reduce the demand for tarsands oil in the first place.

My response is the States is going to stop it anyway so why alienate Albertans over it? The NDP is supporting Energy East. I am told the cap and trade and polluter pay policies and jobs make EE different but the oil is still intended for foreign markets that will burn it and it will still come from the oil sands.

Aristotleded24 wrote:
And the credit for saving the experimental lakes belongs primarily with the governments of Manitoba and Ontario, not the federal politicians.

That's my point. Harper cut them. Harper's changes to environmental laws etc. and tax cuts and muzzling of scientists are far more extreme and being done under different world conditions. It's not necessary to say the Liberals are good to admit they aren't as bad as Harpercons. If you genuinely believe there is no difference between the Conservatives and Liberals except the Conservatives are better because they are honest then in my opinion you are so blinded by partisanship that you undermine your credibility.

If the NDP is ever elected they will sign free trade deals that you don't like and they will continue to refuse to raise taxes on the rich etc. but that won't make them exactly the same as the Liberals and Conservatives. 

 

mark_alfred

Almost all provincial elections have seen the return of the party in power due to people not wanting to rock the boat.  So, if nothing dramatic happens with the economy, then the Conservatives will win again in 2015, I predict.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
My response is the States is going to stop it anyway so why alienate Albertans over it? The NDP is supporting Energy East. I am told the cap and trade and polluter pay policies and jobs make EE different but the oil is still intended for foreign markets that will burn it and it will still come from the oil sands.

That's your understanding, but can you point to any actual campaigns that suggest the emissions released from energy east will be on the magnitude of Keystone? It's the absolute amount of GHG emissions.

Pondering wrote:
If the NDP is ever elected they will sign free trade deals that you don't like and they will continue to refuse to raise taxes on the rich etc. but that won't make them exactly the same as the Liberals and Conservatives.

Actually, if the NDP did as you suggested, yes that would make them the same as the Liberals and the Conservatives, and I would have to re-evaluate my support for the party. Barring a miracle, it is very unlikely that I will support the NDP here in Manitoba in the next election precisely because the Manitoba NDP is acting too much like an establishment party for my tastes.

PrairieDemocrat15

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
And what a coincidence that he only apologized once that interview was made public and he started feeling the backlash, many years after the fact?

If the NDP is ever elected they will sign free trade deals that you don't like and they will continue to refuse to raise taxes on the rich etc. but that won't make them exactly the same as the Liberals and Conservatives. 

At least the NDP has taken a principled position to not support any trade deal that has an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (NAFTA chapter 11). The Liberals voted for a motion supporting the EU and Korean trade deals lock, stock, and barrel.

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP does have an opportunity to offer a vision for Western Canada different than what Harper has set in motion. Let's see if they use that opportunity.

I think  the Conservative grip is not as strong as some say it is. I also agree that failing to challenge it is a bigger problem.

The NDP should be able to come up with pro-west policies that do not assume the Conservative vision of what pro-west looks like is correct.

The NDP should not take the Liberal weakness for granted. Even though there is a lot of ill-feeling for the Liberals in the West, if they were to follow this advice before the NDP the NDP could be damaged for a very long time. Pro-west policy ideas won't come from Ottawa any more than copying Conservtive ideas. More time has to be spent there talking to people who want a new vision.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If the NDP works on the premise that everything west of Ontario is the same they will not do well. 

There are very real differences between the Coast and the Interior of BC let alone between BC and the other provinces on the far side of the Great Divide. I get really tired of the term Western Canada because as someone who has lived on the Salish Sea for many decades and raised my family here and who has lived in both Sask and Alta with family in both provinces I think the Western regions have far less in common than the two Central Canadian provinces have with each other.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry-- did not mean it to sound like that-- and it is not just a provincial thing but Northern, Southern, Rural, Urban, Aboriginal, Non-aboriginal, Coast, Interior.

What is in common is the feeling of distance from Ottawa and by that I don't mean physical distance. This is why they get lumped together in spite of differences because on the issue of alienation there is a common ground.

I would not agree that Ontario and Quebec have much in common. I think in some respects they have moved between growing together and growing apart and mostly by coincidence rather than any real communication or common market for ideas and culture

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The only thing most Canadians agree on is that Ottawa is screwing their region. What I mean is that Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent and it also shares a bipolar love/hate relationship. For much of the rest of Canada that relationship is not part of our culture.

In BC no matter whether the Head Office conducts its business in English or French makes little difference to a worker getting screwed by a Central Canadian corporation.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The only thing most Canadians agree on is that Ottawa is screwing their region. What I mean is that Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent and it also shares a bipolar love/hate relationship. For much of the rest of Canada that relationship is not part of our culture.

I am a lifelong resident of Ontario, and I have no idea what you mean by this. If you could be more specific, perhaps I could agree or disagree.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In BC no matter whether the Head Office conducts its business in English or French makes little difference to a worker getting screwed by a Central Canadian corporation.

Surely, the location of the head office is just as irrelevant as the language used there. The important fact is that the worker is getting screwed by a corporation, irrespective of whether it is based in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, New York, London, or Tokyo.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The only thing most Canadians agree on is that Ottawa is screwing their region. What I mean is that Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent and it also shares a bipolar love/hate relationship. For much of the rest of Canada that relationship is not part of our culture.

I am a lifelong resident of Ontario, and I have no idea what you mean by this. If you could be more specific, perhaps I could agree or disagree.

Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent.  Ontario and Quebec have historically been each others largest trading partners and that relationship has dwarfed the trade between Quebec and other parts of Canada or Ontario and other parts of Canada. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The only thing most Canadians agree on is that Ottawa is screwing their region. What I mean is that Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent and it also shares a bipolar love/hate relationship. For much of the rest of Canada that relationship is not part of our culture.

I am a lifelong resident of Ontario, and I have no idea what you mean by this. If you could be more specific, perhaps I could agree or disagree.

Central Canada shares an economy that is intertwined and codependent.  Ontario and Quebec have historically been each others largest trading partners and that relationship has dwarfed the trade between Quebec and other parts of Canada or Ontario and other parts of Canada. 

OK, thanks. I guess I can only agree with that, as it seems to be plain historical fact.

 

Atlas

Debater wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
None of this is backed up by real information. All studies show that Con votes are much more fixed than Lib votes, which are comparatively soft. It makes no sense to say the Libs are harder to kill than the Cons. They are clearly the easier target. I'm not sure if the Cons can get much lower than they are but the Libs sure can. More importantly the majority of Lib voters have the NDP as their second choice and far fewer of Con voters do. It's obvious where the votes are to be mined.

Harder to kill?  Do you see the language you are using?  You are allowing your emotions to completely overwhelm your reason.  And it sounds disturbing to hear you talk of wanting to kill off another party - you sound like Harper.

Keep a few points in mind:

1.  The NDP had a chance to win over Liberal/NDP swing voters in 2011 under Layton.  Even with the Liberals down below 20% and falling to 18.9%, they still weren't able to beat the Conservatives anywhere outside Quebec.

2.  The Liberals have a better chance of beating the Conservatives because they attract red tories & blue liberals who are not normally going to vote NDP.  We saw this particularly in Ontario in 2011.  When you try to precipitate a Liberal collapse, you just risk driving those Liberals back to the Conservatives to block the NDP.  Chantal Hébert cautioned the NDP about this in a column earlier this month.

You are absolutely wrong, and embarassingly Liberal-partisan, when you say "the NDP wasn't able to beat the Conservatives outside Quebec in 2011."  Here are the FACTS:

In 2011, the NDP won 103 seats, and came SECOND in ANOTHER 110 seats.  Outside of Quebec, the NDP won 44 seats in the rest of Canada - and the Liberals won 34 seats IN TOTAL.  In other words, the NDP won more seats outside of Quebec ALONE than the Liberals won in the entire country.

The NDP holds more seats than the Liberals in every area of the country except Atlantic Canada (where it is still quite close).

The NDP won 12 seats in BC, the Libs 2;  in the West, the NDP won 16 seats; the Libs 5.  In Ontario, the NDP won 22 seats - the Libs won 11.  In Quebec, of course, the NDP won 59 and the Libs hardly any. And in the Atlantic provinces, it is mainly a wash.  The FACT is that the NDP beat Conservatives all over the country, and the Liberals got seriously beat BY the Cons.

Importantly, the NDP has support throughout the country:  in the North, in the West, in Ontario, in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. The Liberals have NO seats in the North, only 5 seats west of Ontario, a handful in Quebec.

The FACT is that if you look at the numbers, it is the NDP who is best positioned to defeat Harper in 2015 - unless, of course, you believe the Toronto Star, Liberal-biased media and the horse-race pollsters who are methodologically incompetent and laughingly unreliable.

Aristotleded24

Atlas wrote:
Debater wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
None of this is backed up by real information. All studies show that Con votes are much more fixed than Lib votes, which are comparatively soft. It makes no sense to say the Libs are harder to kill than the Cons. They are clearly the easier target. I'm not sure if the Cons can get much lower than they are but the Libs sure can. More importantly the majority of Lib voters have the NDP as their second choice and far fewer of Con voters do. It's obvious where the votes are to be mined.

Harder to kill?  Do you see the language you are using?  You are allowing your emotions to completely overwhelm your reason.  And it sounds disturbing to hear you talk of wanting to kill off another party - you sound like Harper.

Keep a few points in mind:

1.  The NDP had a chance to win over Liberal/NDP swing voters in 2011 under Layton.  Even with the Liberals down below 20% and falling to 18.9%, they still weren't able to beat the Conservatives anywhere outside Quebec.

2.  The Liberals have a better chance of beating the Conservatives because they attract red tories & blue liberals who are not normally going to vote NDP.  We saw this particularly in Ontario in 2011.  When you try to precipitate a Liberal collapse, you just risk driving those Liberals back to the Conservatives to block the NDP.  Chantal Hébert cautioned the NDP about this in a column earlier this month.

You are absolutely wrong, and embarassingly Liberal-partisan, when you say "the NDP wasn't able to beat the Conservatives outside Quebec in 2011."  Here are the FACTS:

In 2011, the NDP won 103 seats, and came SECOND in ANOTHER 110 seats.  Outside of Quebec, the NDP won 44 seats in the rest of Canada - and the Liberals won 34 seats IN TOTAL.  In other words, the NDP won more seats outside of Quebec ALONE than the Liberals won in the entire country.

The NDP holds more seats than the Liberals in every area of the country except Atlantic Canada (where it is still quite close).

The NDP won 12 seats in BC, the Libs 2;  in the West, the NDP won 16 seats; the Libs 5.  In Ontario, the NDP won 22 seats - the Libs won 11.  In Quebec, of course, the NDP won 59 and the Libs hardly any. And in the Atlantic provinces, it is mainly a wash.  The FACT is that the NDP beat Conservatives all over the country, and the Liberals got seriously beat BY the Cons.

Importantly, the NDP has support throughout the country:  in the North, in the West, in Ontario, in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. The Liberals have NO seats in the North, only 5 seats west of Ontario, a handful in Quebec.

The FACT is that if you look at the numbers, it is the NDP who is best positioned to defeat Harper in 2015 - unless, of course, you believe the Toronto Star, Liberal-biased media and the horse-race pollsters who are methodologically incompetent and laughingly unreliable.

The NDP has also done much better in holding ground against tough Conservative challenges than the Liberals have. For instance, in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, the NDP has been neck-and-neck despite losing for 2 consecutive elections. So many seats the Liberals lost in squeakers went largely Conservative in the following election.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
If the NDP works on the premise that everything west of Ontario is the same they will not do well. 

There are very real differences between the Coast and the Interior of BC let alone between BC and the other provinces on the far side of the Great Divide. I get really tired of the term Western Canada because as someone who has lived on the Salish Sea for many decades and raised my family here and who has lived in both Sask and Alta with family in both provinces I think the Western regions have far less in common than the two Central Canadian provinces have with each other.

I'm not meaning to suggest that everything west of Ontario is the same. I feel when there is talk about the importance of "Ontario and Quebec," that everything west of Ontario is being ignored. On that point I think we can have some basis of agreement.

I also agree with your contention that there are differences within Western Canada, which you've pointed to in BC. I'd also go out on a limb and suggest that there are differences even within Ontario and Quebec, for example Toronto is not the same as Northern Ontario is not the same as 905 is not the same as the rural south. I even think there may be commonalities between the same types of areas. For example, urban ridings in Vancouver and Toronto may have more in common with each other than the geographic regions they are located. Likewise there may be more in common with rural Manitoba and Saskatchewan ridings with rural Ontario ridings.

My point is that the platform needs to have enough flexibility to reasonably articulate concerns in every region of the country.

Pages